Good evening. This is the meeting of the municipal land use board for the Burough of River Edge is Wednesday, May 27th, 2026. The time now is 7:35 p.m. I'm going to ask the port council to read the uh opening meetings act notice.
>> This meeting of the municipal land use board of the bureau of river edge is being held both in person and remotely via Zoom in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings act and associated regulations. Notice of this hybrid meeting was published in the Bergen record posted at Burough Hall and posted on the Burough's website. The notice included the dial and login
information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely. A copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the Burough's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial and login information. Please silence all cell phones during the public comment period of this meeting. If you'd
like to make a public comment, you may step up to the microphone and wait to be recognized for the chairperson. Press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. You may mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star six on your telephone keypad. You must state your
name and address prior to making a public comment. >> Okay. Thank you very much. At this time, I'd ask everyone to please stand to salute the flag. >> Salo, would you kindly lead us? >> Sure to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Hey, at this time, could we uh call the role, please? >> Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor
>> here. >> Mr. Kaslin >> here. >> Mr. Craig >> here. >> Miss Boland >> here. >> Mr. Gibbons >> here. >> Mr. Kigo is excused. Mr. Salva >> here. >> Mr. Goier >> here. >> Councilman Glass >> here. Miss Lavine
>> here. >> Um, also present we have on Zoom our zoning officer, Mr. Deepkin. Uh, in person, our board engineer, Mr. Costa. Um, and our recording secretary is on Zoom, um, Lisa.
>> Okay, thank you. We're going to move along in our agenda. We have no minutes for our May 13th meeting at this time. So, we're going to proceed uh into completeness review. The memorialization for Del central is also not available at this time. So our first
item under completeness review this evening, the applicant is J. Malkey. The property is 473 Windsor Road, block 814, lot 10. Applications seeking approval for additions and alterations to the residence.
Miss Brown. >> Yes. Thank you. Prior to this meeting, I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant um and found them to be sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Deppkin. >> Yes. Good evening. Uh I would consider
the application complete to be heard. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pasto, Mr. >> Chairman Ditto on on both. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Questions from the board as to completeness. Okay. There being none, I will look for
a motion to deem the application complete. So moved. >> First, Mr. Gibbons. Have a second. >> Have a second. Mr. Craig. >> All right, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kaslin? >> Yes. >> Mr. Craig? >> Yes. >> Miss Boland? >> Yes. >> Mr. Gibbons?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Saba? >> Yes. >> Mr. Gotier? >> Yes. >> Councilman Glass? >> Yes. >> Miss? >> Yes. >> Right. The motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Our next item under completeness review, the applicant is Christina Castanzo. Property is 320
Lexington Drive, block 1106, lot 26. Application seeking approval for additions and site improvements to the single family residence. Miss Brown. >> Yes. Thank you. Prior to the uh to this meeting, I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be
sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Deepkin. Uh yes, I would consider the application complete to be heard. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Costa. >> Same. Okay. Thank you. Questions or comments from the board on completeness
of this application? There being none, I'll look for a motion to deem the application complete. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Given. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Salvo. >> All right. Uh Mr. Mayor, >> yes. >> Mr. Kaslin, >> yes. >> Mr. Craig, >> yes.
>> Miss Boland, >> yes. Yes. Mr. Gibbons, >> yes. >> Mr. Saba, >> yes. >> Mr. Gotier, >> yes. >> Councilman Glass, >> yes. >> And Miss Leavine, >> yes. >> The motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you. Our final item in the completeness review this evening, the applicant is Sweet Spot River Edge LLC.
Property is 75 Route 4 East, block 1415, lot 1.01. applications seeking a variance for signage and along main and secondary uh access points. Miss Brown.
>> So, at this time, I haven't reviewed the proofs um for the public hearing because the public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. I believe the applicant did submit the proofs for the June uh 10th meeting, but those are yet to be reviewed. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> And they are not reflective of completeness of the application. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Deppkin. >> Uh, yes. I also would consider this application complete to be heard. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Caes, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Questions from the board regarding
completeness of this application. There being none, I'll look for a motion to deem the application complete. >> So move. >> Thank you, Miss Scotia. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Molen. >> All right, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Klin. Yes, >> Mr. Craig.
>> Yes, >> Miss Boland. >> Yes, >> Mr. Gibbons. >> Yes, >> Mr. Saba. >> Yes, >> Mr. Goautier. >> Yes, >> Councilman Glass. >> Yes, >> Miss Leavine. >> Yes. >> Okay, the motion passes. >> Okay, thank you. At this time, we're going to move under the new business section of our agenda this evening. The
first item is for J. Malkey. Property is 473 Windsor Road, block 814 Lock 10. application seeking approval for additions and alterations to a single family home. Believe the
applicant is with us this evening. Good evening. As well as the applicants professional, >> I can swear the applicants in. Um, if you just turn that microphone on, you just have to press the button. Um, so it's green. >> There we go.
>> And you can sit too. >> Do you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. >> Yes. >> And then please state your name and provide your address for the record. >> James Mali, Mal Ki, 473 Windsor Road,
River Edge, New Jersey. Charlene Malkey, M A L KI, 473 Windsor Road, River, New Jersey. Thank you. >> And Mr. Bruno, when you're ready, please raise right hand. Do you swear affirming the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And just remind the board that your license is still current and in good standing >> since last two weeks ago. >> It's been a while. Mr. Bruno, welcome back. like
>> we appreciate that. Floor is yours, sir. >> Start by handing out to the board some photographs that I took. Usually take taken by myself yesterday. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
And if you could just share that microphone and we'll mark this as exhibit A1. um a photo exhibit prepared by Mr. Bruno consisting of seven photo sheets and a
cover sheet. >> Yes. And I took those yesterday. >> Okay. >> May I proceed? Yeah. to give the uh the boy just a um little bit of context here. Uh photograph number one is the
east or front elevation of the subject residence. Uh photograph number two is the east or front elevation view of the residence to the south of of the subject. So if you're standing in the street looking at the resident the subject house, it's
this the house to the left. Um, photograph number three is the east or the front elevation view of the residents to the north or to the right of the subject. Photograph number four is the west or front elevation view or the residents across the street. Photograph number
five is the west or front elevation of the the residence to the east of that one. Um, no to the south of that of that one across from the resident the subject property. Photograph number six is the west or rear elevation view of the
subject residence. And photograph number seven is the east or rear elevation view or the residence to the um behind the residence or to the uh I believe to the west. So I was standing in the backyard near the the fence at the rear of the property looking towards the um that
house. The uh proposal is to I'll just break the diesel here a little bit so I'm closer to the microphone. Um, it's a it's a typical river edge colonial, two stories, and
the proposal is to expand the home to the rear and to the left side as you're looking at the house from the street to increase um the the first floor living space and the and and
the kitchen, creating a mudroom and a laboratory in the front of the house where the dining room presently sits. The second floor is arranged if with four four bedrooms and uh three three baths plus plus a laundry room. The
architecture of the house, the exterior architecture of the house is proposed to be of American traditional style with uh with stone at the base, clapard siding and also shake style siding. So we have a a um play of different uh different
styles of siding as well as textures. So it gives the house some some v visual interest as well as as some standing slum metal roofing on the the lower front canopies. The uh the variances that the that the project requires are
as follows and I'll be I'll be as concise as I can. Uh front yard setback in the zone in the R1 zone is 30 ft. The existing is 31 feet and we are proposing 23.12
feet from the front lot line to the the front edge of the covered porch that we're proposing at the main entrance. The the existing vestibule is is is remaining as you see in the photograph.
You'll see the the um uh the vessel protruding forward and we are proposing a um covered front portico. The uh total distance including the stair is 4'4 in from the the existing front wall of the
entrance. So the platform will be 3' 4 4 in. The uh second variance that we're we're requesting is for building coverage. Uh 25% is permitted in the zone. We are at present 19.83 and with the proposed um proposed
expansion we would be at 30 at uh 30%. It's uh it's important to note that we do have an undersized lot in the R1 zone. The minimum lot required is 7,500 square ft. the the existing lot area is 6,000 square feet with no ability to to
acquire adjacent land to make the the property larger in clo in in in um in in in in closer conformity with the ordinance. Uh so the the size of the lot um is contributing to the variance
requirements because we're we have the uh the undersized lot which is which is under the uh municipal land use law a uh a a hardship in and of itself. The lot width is uh requirement is is 75 feet
and we are at 60. It's important to note that although we do um we do uh have a a um a setback um variance, it's very slight despite the fact that that we have have an
undersized lot with respect to width. The the required uh sideyard setback is set is 7.5 ft. We are at 7.02 02 feet at the at the um the back right corner or the uh the northwest corner and
basically we are taking the existing um line of the house on the the northerly side and just extending it back. So that's that's where we we have the um the um the deficiency. Um the uh lot
coverage excluding yard amenities 30% is is permitted. Uh we are 27.41%. We are proposing 40.96 and lot coverage including yard amenities. 35% is permitted. We are at 36.41
which is a pre-existing non-conforming condition and we are proposing 45.46. Now, since we um we uh submitted the application, I had discussions with uh Mr. and Mrs. Malfy about reducing the um
the the impervious coverage. So, um if we were to take the area of the um that back proposed new stair and platform that's 62 square ft with having open joints in the decking and the um and
pvious surface below, you know, just uh some decorative stone so we don't get mud back there. Uh we can reduce that to 16 square feet from 62. And by doing permeable pavers for the the rear patio,
we can reduce that uh from 240 ft to 120 ft. So if we do that calculation, we could reduce the um the um impervious coverage from 46% to 42.76% simply by by changing the um the types
of pavement back there. And with that, I'd answer any and all questions the board has. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Burl. Start with the our zoning officer, Mr. Deppkin. >> Uh, yes. Um, I didn't get the information on the impervious coverage
or pvious coverage. So, um, you know, depending upon what those calculations are, I'm going to, you know, agree with Mr. Bruno. Other than that, no comments. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Costa. Um, one
thing about the driveway in the front. I'm sorry, Michael. Thanks. If >> you expand, you're expanding the driveway in the front, correct? >> Yes. >> From one car to a twocar. >> Yes. >> What if you if you make those permeable also, then you pick up I think another
287 square ft. >> Let me get my calculator and I'll check. So the proposed driveway area is 574. So if we do the permeable pavs, we'd be at half of that. So we would be um >> 287
>> 287 and taking that from the previous um revised total 2566 minus 287 that gives us 2279. I just state that for the record here.
And then if we divide that by 6,000, we come up with. Oh, let me just check that again. Oh, no, sorry. Yeah, 287 I'm subtracting. So 2279 / 6,000
is 3798. We bring the impervious coverage down to to 37.98 instead of 43.76. I'm sorry number. All right. What was your total again? I'm sorry. >> Total I had was 22.
>> You're reducing the deck, right? 62 to 75% of that, >> right? We went um the the deck uh was reduced to 16 square ft. >> Okay. And then you got the patio. >> The patio was reduced to 120. >> Okay. And
>> and the driveway is being reduced to 287. >> Okay. So when you do all the arithmetic, what did you what's your total? >> Total is 2279. 37.98. So 38 >> 38. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'd like to give the exact number
and then we can round. >> Okay. >> And and the driveway pavers that is the entire driveway or just the the widened portion? >> No, that would be the entire >> the entire driveway. >> Yeah. with that. >> A question about the lot coverage
amenities. Um the purpose of that was if a structure had already been built and a new tenant, a new owner came in and wanted to put a patio, it wasn't possible because it had been maxed out during construction. But
if there's an if there's the plan for a rear deck and a patio, haven't that hasn't that concern been covered? Does he need to have that nine square feet? Actually, whatever that comes out to um I think it was nine
square feet. Um as a set aside for an amenity when the amenity is already there. >> We're talking about the total lot coverage right now. >> If I may, okay, the um amenities, right? >> It's including >> the stair and platform is is not
intended as a deck. It's it's it's simply to allow passage from the interior of the home down to the patio. If you look at the at the at photograph number I believe it's six, you'll uh photo yeah photograph number six, you'll
see that the that the first floor elevation above the grade is is uh one two three four about five risers. So plus the the door is about three and a half to four four feet. So we need at least a platform with stairs to get down to the patio.
>> But then there's the patio. >> Yes. >> So there is a backyard amenity of the patio which was the whole reason of you know having the the the amenity the 5% amenity required was so that patios could be added because that was the
challenge we kept running into. But if there already is a patio, does there need to be another x square feet 5% to to meet that requirement? It seems to me like we're kind of over
requiring uh amenity space here. >> We're not talking about the 5% that has to be allocated to the amenities. We're talking about the total lot coverage including amenities. That's what we're talking about right now. That's the
37.98 total lot coverage with the discounts for the deck and the permeable payers. Total lot coverage, not the allocated amount for amenities.
>> Okay. with your reductions um in the pavers and the open decking. Um does that also bring down the to the lot coverage excluding yard
amenities? Because isn't the driveway included in that? >> It brings down well it brings down um both because the driveway I believe is counted in the is excluded from the yard amenities, right?
So maybe if you if you could find that number for us too, that would be great. >> Just be patient. >> I'm as As you can tell, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole yard of Medicine, but but that's okay. I'll get
there. Um 2450 if uh 2458 is the final improved lot coverage excluding the yard amenity. So 2458 minus 287 which is which is half of the of the driveway area. I guess we got
that. Yes. Okay. 2458 minus 287 is 2171 / 6,000 is 36.18. That's the that's excluding yard
amenities. And I believe the permitted is 30% excluding yard amenities. Correct. Yeah. >> Yes, that's correct. >> And then with your amenities, we're at 38.
>> Mr. Costa, anything further? >> Yeah. No, I just want to make sure I I because the stairs are sitting on top of the uh patio, but I think you excluded. We're not doubling it, >> right? We're not we're not extending the patio beneath the stairs. >> Okay. Cuz it's 14 4 by 154.
So you took that into the um the decking, >> right? That's that's all open joint. So we can we can count per the ordinance. We can count 25% of it. >> Correct. No, no. I just want to make sure you didn't hurt yourself, but you did. >> Right. Yeah. Okay.
>> I try not to. >> Okay. I'm just >> not always successful, but I pardon. I'm good. >> Doing good. I'm good. Uh let's move to uh questions, comments from the board. Uh Mr. Goia, can I start with you? Sure.
Uh no questions this time. Thank you, >> Mr. Craig. >> Yeah, I'm good. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. >> So, we have um and I always get it wrong, positive and negative criteria. Right. So I guess you're saying that um
that you're looking for this uh variance because it's an undersized lot. >> Undersized lot. So we have a hardship based on the undersized lot. And I would also say that based on based on the um
you know and um it's it isn't in um you know within the scale of the of the other recent projects that I put before the board, but it's also um inherently beneficial in a sense that it's taking
it it's it's it's taking a quite old house and modernizing it for modern family life as well as uh because it's bringing it more in in um accordance with the way the neighborhood has begun
to develop o over time especially re recently then if you go to join sheet number three to that front the front elevation, it's greatly improved over that which is there at at present. So the um the Malis
are trying to to expand their home to um to uh pro properly accommodate their growing family as well as to provide a um a a good face to the neighbors and and trying to not mimic what the
neighbors are doing, but being being s being being empathetic to and being respectful of what the neighbors have been starting to do and and having the house become part of the neighborhood fabric as it as as it continues. >> You're also pulling another car off the
street and out onto the site, right? You've expanded the driveway. >> Yes, expand the driveway. So, we're so we have two side by two side by side um parking spaces um as well as as well as the garage.
The reason I ask is we recently uh Councilman Glass can affirm this. We recently had a resident come in and uh very concerned about how this uh affects the neighbors in size and dimensions. So you're you're looking for a variance in
front yard setback. You're going from 31 ft to 23 feet. Is that correct? >> Excuse me. >> Front yard front yard setback is 30 feet to 23 feet. Correct. >> Yes. Okay, as if you can if you look at the
cyclone it the where the um where we're proposing a covered front porch and a couple of risers. So one tread two two risers. So in this area is is where there is a walkway at present. So, we're
creating and if you go back to photograph number, go back to photograph number one and you compare it to to the east elevation, you'll see that the that's that the um the benefit of
the enhanced architecture far outweighs the the numbers, you know, the number the the setback um less the lesser setback to the street. So you're going to have the vestibule and the portico. >> The vestibule is there already. And then
the portico is is open on three sides. It's supported by two columns. There's simply a roof. So that >> it's going to be in front of the vestibule. >> It's going to be in front of the vestibule. >> That's why they're getting to this. >> Yeah. I just have a stair platform. So basically right right now there's uh there's not even an an adequate um stair
platform. It doesn't even comply. it it complied with whatever um you know uh l loose code there may have been when the house we built but in in New Jersey we didn't have the first codified building codes until the 1970s so back when this
house was built it wasn't even a code requirement but you could see that uh you know for safety for amenity and also aesthetics >> that doesn't require drill on the front does it >> oh no no what I'm saying is simply back when the house is built.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. >> So, just so that I get this right, building coverage is 25%, you're going up 5% or uh to 30. Lock coverage excluding yardage amendities is 30% and
you're going up to 37% another 7%. >> And lot coverage excluding yardage amenities is 35 and you're going up to 38. Well, that that's only 3% increase. Um, no more questions at this time.
>> Okay, >> I don't have any questions. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Gibbons. >> Just to help with that, the questions about that, what is the distance if if you know from the actual edge of the house, forget the the portico and that from the edge of the the main part of the house to the street,
>> the edge of the uh the existing house. >> Yeah. without, you know, the the main part of the house, like on the side, >> the the main box, you're looking about uh where probably 26 feet to the main box of the house. And that would be the
the main box of the house, as we say, is the twotory portion. The vestibule is the well, the vestibule right now is is um is one story, as will the portico. So the um um and again the um the the
front edge of the portico is is open on three the portico is open on three sides. It's it's supported by it's just a roof supported by columns. >> Right. And the intent there is that you're you have some covering over you when you're coming into that >> some some cover and also in the we're in
the um the uh you know shop from home age and >> protect your Amazon packages have to go somewhere. >> That's all I have. Thanks. Mr. Sal, >> I don't have any questions. Liz P. >> I do. Just back with the front yard
setback. The ser you're not increasing the front yard other than the portico. >> Correct. The uh the main box of the house is staying where it where it is. >> Okay. So, the survey does say 31 ft for the existing home >> that
that number did seem a little low what you told me. >> I think >> yeah, that I I think I had this I think I had the setback line in the wrong place. >> Okay. is 26 feet to the vestibule, >> but 31 ft was the existing front yard setback.
>> Yeah, 31 to the existing. >> So, the front yard is conforming except for the port. >> Except for the >> That's it. >> Mine. >> Uh, no questions right now. >> Mr. Berno, can you talk a little bit about the topography of the of the lot?
We had a >> topography in the front is is fairly level and flat and and it slopes off down in the back. There will be no um no manipulation of the grades. We won't be re regrading. So so the natural the
natural sheet flow so so to speak within within the grass area will will still be as it is now. The patio will continue to be level because the patio the proposed patio is in the area of the of the existing patio. so that we're basically
squaring off this this edge and then the um then then the lot gently slopes off. But we do have a we do have steps coming from the first floor of the house down to the patio as they they exist today in terms of the vertical distance.
>> Okay. And what sort of conditions exist today when you have storm runoff back there? Do you have a water condition? Do you is it >> that would be better answered by Mr. and Mrs. Bounty. Um not that we're aware issues asking are there any issues in
water being trapped back there or >> well more water given the change in grade is if you have water running off your property onto the property behind you you're creating any sort of condition for your neighbor at this time without really tell you is the lots behind are deeper and there's actually
like the fencing is usually like like five six feet away. like a gap between the properties where it's more their property and it's something obtainable while there was it a drop off the lost space. >> Um if if you look on sheet number one I
do have we do have storm water retention proposed on site and I believe Mr. Costa had um had reviewed that and um I not to my knowledge he found an issue with that. So, we will be um we will be
capturing the um uh the rainwater from the the new roof areas and to the tune of I think 3 in per hour, which is the the standard that we're required to u to abide by.
>> Okay. And the avers for the new walkway that you have in your plan, those going to be permeable as well. >> That was not in the calculation, but while we're at it, we could add we could see what that would do. Okay, Mr. Chairman, just one, couldn't you, if
you had to, couldn't you take out the the walkway from the the sidewalk to the house and just have the one walkway? You would walk up the driveway and then >> that would be a bit difficult, especially when there are two cars parked there because it would be it would be a tight
>> skinny people over there. >> I am not walk across the grass all the time. >> Yeah. But no good. I don't know. I have it at my house and I have no problem with the ses. >> Um I'm wondering if if you don't mind.
Thank you. So with all this increase in square footage for the actual home um could the um best of you possibly be converted into the portico and then you don't have the issue with the setback. I
mean you're increasing the square footage significantly. I'm thinking of, you know, ideally there could be some tradeoffs here and I'm wondering if that that vestibule could just be converted into Thorco and
someone could build a closet somewhere or whatever purpose that vestibule serving could somehow be accommodated and expansions that you're making otherwise to the belt. >> And are you studying that as as you're speaking? Yeah, I I I don't expect an
answer on the flight, but that's going to be honestly a concern. >> Well, one of the things one of the benefits of the of the vestig is that when you when you open the door, you've got a place you you you you've got a place to um to to take off the wet
things before going before going in. And if we have the front door back here, then it becomes at the bottom of the stair. >> Well, I have a portico and keeps us very light. No, I'm talking about when when what's on the ground that gets picked up by by
shoes and you're walking in the rain. >> Oh, wow. >> Yeah. >> So, where's the mud room? >> Mud room is right to the the We have a bench with cubbies just to the right as you come in >> through here. So, you could take your shoes off in in the in the vestibule and then and then store them once you walk
into the house. I'm not the architect, but that's, you know, my suggestion is I think it's pretty functional if you have a portico where the vestibule is and when you enter the house, you walk into the mud room that you just described.
I think if we could have um we could have well if we can continue on that thread then if we could have maybe five minutes we said >> okay I think we've reached the end of >> I just had one um question if now that you're um
revising your variance requests um based on the permeable pavers and those reductions um those new numbers the new uh total square footage if this was a conforming lot area of 7500. Would the application be
compliant? >> I could run the numbers, but I don't think we'd be here. >> Yeah, it would just be for the front yard set. >> It would just be the setback. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Let me let let me just run that number. If we if we took the the I
think the last number we had with the with the total I guess um well if we wait let's take the 2279 because that'll just give us if we take the 2279
divided by 7500 which is the which is the um uh the the actual >> yeah you get 30.4 the permit comes up to 30.3 30.3 at 30 30.4 four just >> but I mean we don't have a 7500 foot lot. We have a 6,000 foot lot.
>> All right. But that was just >> just for comparison. >> Okay. Um any further questions for the board for the >> I just like to say I don't really necessarily have an issue with the port of government but I think the way it's set up it looks
nice. Um I don't personally see a need to remove what's there. That's just me. Okay. All right. At this time, >> excuse me, chair chairman. >> Yes, uh the code gives a um a leeway of six feet if it's a porch uh into the front
yard. So, if you want to consider this uh comparable to a porch, um it gives you that uh that six foot leeway. It'd still be over by less than two two feet, but reduces it.
>> Really minimal. >> Okay. I'll look for a motion at this time to open to the public. >> Take Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Go. All in favor? >> I oppose. They abstain. >> Okay. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to be heard on this application only at this time?
>> There's someone on Zoom. All right, Ms. Ad Doll. >> Yes. >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Could you please just state your name and address for the record? >> Sure. Good evening. I'm Yiki Molina Adal, ADA L, owner of 477 Windsor Road.
Okay. Good evening. She could go ahead statement. >> Thanks. So, I'm here to express a concern not opposed the Malkeis improving their home. Their renderings look great. Um, my concern is about the cumulative impervious coverage and maybe um with the updated numbers this will
change, but the plans include a recharge system, which again I appreciate. and the storm water calculation is sized to the 532 square foot uh roof new roof area but the impervious coverage on the lot is increasing by a lot more than
that. So just want to ask confirm that um they'll have appropriate uh recharge system given the um the total of the previous uh coverage area imperous coverage.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Simple answer. Yes. >> Yes. We we have to comply with with the ordinance and uh if the uh project were to be if the project were to be approved then the um the homeowner would have to
hire a civil engineer to prepare a site plan. I have the the stormwater chamber on the um the drawing to just um uh you know inform the board and let the board know that we are thinking about about storm water management.
And that sore mater will include again the added driveway and walkway and all that >> in accordance with the ordinance. >> Well, they'll be pvious. >> Oh, that's right. We do have the pvious >> that'll be going to pick up the additional roof, >> right? >> Um,
>> so I guess the real question is once you do the arithmetic, >> the driveway area cuts down in half. Correct. >> 574 cut that in half so we can get the right numbers. The stone patio in the back also cuts down in half. >> Walkway,
140 square f feet. I guess that's the the entire walkway. >> Uh you're talking about the front one. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> Let's see. Front walkway that was 140. So that would go down to 70. >> Okay.
So if you do that arithmetic, what are you down to now for impervious? So let's see total impervious was think total impervious was 2458 2458 correct >> yes
>> so then we're subtracting 574 right 574 >> well plus 240 >> we're not subtracting 574 we So, I'm going to add them up and then divide it by two. >> Oh, okay. >> And then 140. Correct. >> 574 + 240 + 1 140
>> 357 >> 954 / 2 477. No, >> you had 574 plus 240. Then you had the >> 140
140 plus 240 plus 140. And then we had the 62. Um, no, the 62 that is separate is >> 25% of that. >> Yeah. So 574 + 240 plus >> 140 140, >> right? 477 477. So 2458 - 477
>> and then you're going to reduce the >> 1981 divided by 6,000. >> Well, you're going to take off the 62 square ft. You only right 62 >> 1981 - 60. That's right. - 62. Well, not
the total 62, but >> plus 16 >> 75% of that. That's uh 62 46.5. Call it 46 for ease of calculation. Okay.
1873 divided by 6,000 31.2 and your allowable is 30. >> You're almost there. You get rid of the
front walk and now you're there. But anyways, I know you like it. Council >> that was a lot of numbers. >> 31.2. All right. That's we're doing for the bull pers in the the front >> probably >> and the rear.
>> All right. So, your numbers, Mr. Costa, Mr. Bruno, your numbers are consistent. This seems consistent. >> Yeah. >> All right. At this time, I'll take a motion to close to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> stay. Okay. Okay, this time I'll look for further any main comments or questions from the board on this application. >> Mr. Bruno, do you need to consult with your clients on anything at this point? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. All right. That being said, I'll look for a motion on the application,
please. >> See what we need itemization of all the agreed to. Well, let's have a read on if you can. >> Okay. >> I think I lost you on the last bit, but >> All right. We have a variance for front
yard setback of 23.12 ft. Uh, a variance for building coverage of 30%. an agreement to have open joints with pvious surface below the deck platform
area in the rear um and permeable pavers for the patio, the driveway and the front walkway. >> Yes. >> Is that correct? Okay. Then that reduces the >> lot coverage
>> lot coverage with yard amenities >> to let's see 38%. >> Or did that was further reduced they're reduced >> be further reduced. Yeah >> if I can through the chair. Can we do that number this way? >> Right. Yeah, I think maybe what we
should do is start it over so that we make because we've we've gone. So, we started out >> we we talk about Don't worry about where you started. Let's see where we finish. So, >> no, I went down 31.2%. >> Right. >> Now, you have to do the yard amenities,
right? You have to revise that that number. >> So, the 31.2 is excluding yard amenities. >> Yes. >> 31.2 includes the yard amenities, right? instead of 40. I'd say >> okay. And then the yard amenities
we've got. So 25% of the stair that's correct. 240 goes to 140. The AC unit. >> No, the 240 goes to 120. >> I'm sorry. 120. Correct. So just do that arithmetic.
And then we've got the condenser units, right? That's not going to change though, right? >> No, we still have 18. >> So 16 + 120 + 18 + 18 + 18. 154
divided by 6,000. 2.5%. So yard amenities comply, right? >> So what's the total lot coverage with with amenities? 35.6 >> or 32.6 >> 31.2 >> 31.2
>> plus 2.5 >> 31.2 is without >> without it was 30.2 Sir >> 33.7 >> 33.7 >> Okay. >> And just for clarity for the record, the setback
for the front yard is just for the >> the enclosure. It's not going to allow you to go bring the whole house out to the the 23t. >> Oh, of course. Yeah. No, no, >> I just want to put that in the resolution. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes, if you put in there, you just got a variance for the set for front
yard set back of 23. Then guess what? >> I'd be in tomorrow morning and pushing the house out to 23 ft off the road. >> Yeah, but then wait, but then it just messes up everything we've worked on. >> I get a yard. >> No, no, no. We don't do that.
>> So, just to clarify, the front yard setback just to the portico, we know that of 23 >> 23.12, >> right? Building coverage is still 30%. Lot coverage with yard amenities is now 30.7
33.7 >> 33.7 >> with amenities >> and without >> 31.2 >> 31.2 Four parents, >> two bars. We still have the setback issue, the
point setback issue, which is, as the mayor mentioned, the kind of thing that, you know, we have to think about because people in our community find that objectionable, that type of thing, that type of encroachment on setbacks
>> of the structure or the portic. This this a recent complaint was about a side setback, but >> that doesn't mean that people are going to love a front setback
aviation. >> But on Fox Coast, >> I thought we were looking more towards allowing porch type things and allowing those to encroach into the front yard setback because we see those as appealing
architectural as opposed to not having them. >> I'm not an architect, but personally I think it's strange to have a word in front of best like sticking out in the house. But um if I understand correctly from Mr. Deepkin
um actually within two feet, right? >> Yes. >> Of what the code >> correct? Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. and then otherwise comply with the burough engineers recommendations regarding storm water management and yes the other comments in
the report um regarding setbacks for pavement from the property lines and things like that >> correct >> um I think that was everything unless I missed something so now it's just three variances and >> that's what you're
only three variances >> I yeah we just I think we eliminated one of them I think the lock coverage including the yard amenities. >> Yeah, now it's >> Yeah, now it's >> Yeah, we're under 35%. >> So, you can just comply with 35%. You don't have to stick to 33.7. You could
you can comply with 35. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. So, that's everything for me. >> So, three. >> Mhm. So, I'll make a motion for block 814, lot 10, uh, to approve the variances and
the stipulations set forth that Miss Brown just read. >> Second. >> Okay, we have first Mr. Given and a second, Mr. Godier. >> All right, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kaslin, >> yes. >> Mr. Craig, >> yes. >> Miss Boland, >> yes.
>> Mr. Gibbons, >> yes. >> Mr. Salva, >> yes. >> Mr. Gotier, >> yes. Councilman Glass, >> I'm voting no because I think this can be at least one of the variances can be resolved without a significant hardship. >> So, no. >> Okay. And Miss Lavine. >> Yes.
>> All right. The motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you folks. Mr. Bruno, >> thank you. >> Please get revised plans as soon as you can so we have all the numbers consistent. There's a lot of math going back. >> So, let's make sure we're getting the right numbers on the bio plants.
>> We don't like the prices. Congrats. >> Thank you so much. >> Moving on on our agenda for the evening. One housekeeping item. We are going to have a 10:30 curfew this evening. Um under new business. Our next application
is for 320 Lexington Drive, block 1106, lot 26. The applicant is Christina Estanzo application seeking approvals for additions and site improvements to a single family home.
>> Good evening the applicant and applicants professional. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. >> All right. And Miss Castanzo, could you
please state your name and address for the record? >> Sure. Christina Castanzo, 320 Lexington Drive, River Edge, New Jersey. >> And is it Mr. Bella? >> Yes. >> All right. Please state your name, address, and provide the board some background on your lensure. I know
you've been before the board before, but it's been a while. >> Yes. Uh Scott Bella, 65 Glenn Avenue, Glenrock, New Jersey. Um, my license, uh, in New Jersey is in good standing. Uh, I've been licensed for 29 years now.
Um, and been doing residential additions, alterations, and new constructions for those 30 years. Um, I've been in front of the board, yes, a couple years back, but I've been throughout Bergen County, uh, for the past, you know, 20 years. Um, you know, throughout a lot of
>> Okay. License in good standing. >> It is still in good standing. Yes. >> Okay. Very good. Questions from the board as to Mr. Bella's qualifications. >> Thank you. >> So, uh, applicant is looking to do an addition to her home. Um, looking to do a rear yard one-story addition and then
do a partial ED level on top of the dwelling. Uh, we're not looking to do a full level to create this big boxy two-story house. So, we're looking to do u something that's has a little more charm to it. uh looking to put a front porch on the dwelling as well. It is uh
a front porch that does not require a variance and that we have that six-foot um uh leeway and you know, we just wanted to add some curb appeal and charm to the house. So, we think that the front porch will allow us to do that. And we're here this evening asking for uh several variances as it relates to
coverages as well as uh a rear yard setback. So the rear yard setback is um to the deck uh where uh the uh requirement is 25 foot and we're at 19 ft to the deck. And the second uh
variance we're asking for is a building coverage where 25% is the requirement and we're asking for 32% um for that uh coverage. Lock coverage excluding the automenities 30% is the requirement and we're at 33.08% 08%
and lot coverage including yard amenities 35% is the requirement and we're at 39.3% but we're going to look to change that with the um the pvious uh pavers as I just learned we can use today. So the
idea is um we're going to do the pvious coverage for the patio as well as the uh front walk and that will take the um imperous uh coverage down from 39.3 down to 37%.
So it's roughly 2% less than what we were proposing um before we started this conversation. We are asking for uh C2 variance as it relates to you know um positive criteria outweighing any detriments. We do
believe that the positive criteria of this dwelling will outweigh any detriments in that it's a residential home. It will have similar roof lines as well as materials um that will fall very nicely in the context of the block. Uh it's a residential feel. We have the
porch which adds a lot of curb appeal as well. And for those same reasons, we don't see any detriments to the overall um you know, zoning uh code in that uh we have a uh a charming home, residential in feel, and fits well within the context of the block. So, I'd
be happy to answer any uh questions that the board has um at this time. >> Great. Thank you. We're going to start with our professional Mr. Deppkin. >> Uh yeah, thank you, Chairman. Um, in regards to the deck, uh, and you have
the, um, uh, proposed patio, um, could the deck be, uh, or have you considered the deck being, uh, redesigned to meet the, uh, rear yard setback? >> Um, we ha, we haven't, uh, but we did
talk about the size of the deck in order to comfortably fit a table out there. So, if it does comply, it would be very narrow um and not allow us to get a a decent size uh table and chairs out there and be able to walk around it. >> Okay. And you're and you're proposing to
do permeable pavers uh for the uh >> for the hardcape for driveway. >> Correct. We'll have to calculate those numbers. >> I have the numbers so we can Yeah, I can give them when when you need them. Yes.
>> Okay. >> I have nothing else. Chairman. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Deepkin. Mr. Cast, >> it's the same thing. Um, you want to go over the numbers or >> you want to go over the numbers slowly? Did you want to amend something? So the
patio uh currently is 280 square ft reduced down to 140. The walkway is 83 square ft reduced down to 41.5. Those percentages when you add them
together add up to 2.3%. Which would reduce our 39.3 um proposed down to 37. % for the use of for the for the overall
lot coverage with yarn amenities. >> And you're not doing anything with the driveway or the walkway in the front. Correct. >> The walkway will be uh that's included in the pvious, but the driveway will remain the way you see it today. Yeah. Repaved, of course. >> Repaved or I believe it's going to be
repaved. I think it's on the older side. Yes. So, it's going to be cleaned up. >> Okay. But you could also make that pavers if you wanted to if you're going to change that to reduce it further. >> Um we did have that discussion I believe that um um you wanted to keep it paved. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So it Yeah. So we were looking to pave it. >> Okay. >> And I guess the only other question is when you walk out of the deck off the back. >> Yes. It looks like you have a sliding glass door. You have the laundry room to the
left >> and then you have a sliding glass door where the table is. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And that's how you're lining up the deck. >> That's where we're coming out onto the deck. Yeah. >> Okay. I have no questions. Okay. Time to questions from the board. I'll start.
Uh, Miss Lane. >> Uh, not right now. >> Okay. Miss Bowen, >> are there additional concessions that could be made for the deck as they were in the last testimony? So the so the deck is going to filter water through um and I believe we
already took into consideration the uh the 75% rule that the board has. We did take that into consideration. >> Thank you. That was all I had. >> Okay, Mr. Solo. >> Uh no questions at this time. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Given. >> So just going along with the deck and
the patio. Uh, is there a need to have a deck and a patio or could you do >> I would considered a deck and then you would have the space for the chairs and you know whatever that entertaining spaces. >> I would defer to my client on that one. Yes.
>> Could we make the patio smaller? We could. I think I need just a little setback. I don't want to put my barbecue on the deck. I would like it just a little bit offset to the deck. >> Okay. Yeah. Because as I don't know if you understand, you get more credit for >> the deck allowing through and then if
it's a patio >> also if it's a patio then it's not going to have the backyard setback issue if I'm saying that right. Is that correct? >> So if it was if it was a patio >> if it was a patio you don't have the setback requirement but you don't get as much credit for the
>> so to be impervious. >> But why would you want a deck and a patio? Just out of curiosity if I can. And again, >> just a little bit more pavered space on the bottom there if I want to put other things there that I don't want on my deck. You know, I want my table and chairs on my deck, but I don't want my grill on my deck. That's the thinking.
Again, if we had to, we could make that patio smaller. >> Yeah, I was just my line of questioning was, do you need the both? But you obviously have a reason and you want to have them both. So, um, that was all I had. Thanks. Okay,
>> another question for Mr. Casta. Can we Is there any way we can make applicants aware of these discounts that they can potentially take before they come in here so they don't have to do all this math on the fly? >> When you have that conversation like
before, >> here's the issue. The architect is a professional and certainly he's read the ordinance and he can go through it because he's taken some credits but not all the above. But maybe he thinks the board's in a great mood tonight and you're going to give extra.
>> Yeah, there's a way we can raise. >> I take the responsibility for missing that. I did pick up on the 75% for the deck, but I didn't didn't see in the ordinance about the pies. >> You're in good company. Almost everyone does. >> Yeah. >> Miss it.
So, the deck is going to be 19 feet from your neighbor's uh water with your neighbor's backyard. >> Correct. >> What? So, describe to me your neighbor's backyard. Like, what's going on? >> I couldn't tell you that because there's
a huge fence. So, I don't know what's going on. >> Okay. Is that your fence or their fence? >> It's their fence. >> Okay. I don't I don't have any other questions. >> I think if it helps. >> So the fence you say it's a huge fence.
Is a sixoot fence. Is that what you're saying? >> Stair fence. I guess it's I cannot see over that fence. >> No further questions. >> Mr. Cors. Good. Mr. Let's go ahead. >> Is there anything we can do to get
closer to conforming with the president code? >> I mean, we we could do a po again I I would defer to my client, but we could do a portion of the driveway with her pavers. Uh but again, you know, I would defer to my client whether that's something that uh you know, she would
like to do. >> That's consider >> I don't love a PA driveway. Um, it's just my preference if that would help. I don't know, maybe a portion at the top of the at the top of the driveway nearest to the um
garage. I don't know. I've seen other things where it's not the whole PA driveway, but portions. >> Okay. with the making the patio a little shiny. >> And and we can also make the the patio in the back a little bit smaller if uh you know if the boiler likes to.
>> One other thing that I I failed to mention um is we will be complying with the the uh the storm water uh that the uh engineer has required obviously. >> So that's part of that. So yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Not every town does.
So and I just got this today so I just read through it. So yeah, we're definitely going we catch on the back end with the soil. We can catch it either way. >> You get it. >> Well, while you're on that topic, could you provide some testimony as to the topography of the lot, how it currently what currently exists there front to
back? >> So, it I haven't been there in a while, but it's relatively flat lot. Yes. And we're not looking to uh change the topography uh by any means. um you know the the patio and deck going to be you know flat surfaces and we're not looking
to uh move a lot of dirt around if you will. So it's going to remain basically the way it is today and relatively flat. >> Okay. And do you have a lot of fil issues with water either leaving your property or coming onto your property for >> unless it's a severe severe rain.
>> Mr. Go I'm sorry I hijacked your time questioning. >> He's good. You're good. Okay. >> Those those are my questions as well. All right. The board has no further questions. >> That's fine. >> I'm looking at a photo, so I don't know
if it's accurate on Google Maps. Um, are there impermeable coverage beyond the footprint of the structure in the front yard? That's not part of the driveway. It looks like
>> there's there's an existing walkway that we're taking. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, there's an existing walkway. >> Okay. You you're removing that. >> That is being removed. >> And we're putting a new one in its place. Well, not not in the same area, but yes. >> Where? Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, we're squaring it off. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Okay. Uh at this time, I'll look for a motion to open to the public. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. K. Is there a second? >> Second. All in favor? Abstain. At this time, we're now open for public comment for this application
only. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to be heard on this application, either live with us or on Zoom? >> You can raise your hand on Zoom now. >> Nope. Don't have anyone.
>> There being none, I'll look for a motion to close public comment. So moved. >> Thank you, M. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Salv. Stain. And we're now close to the public. We'll comment on this application at this time. Any further
comments either from our professionals or from the board questions? >> Yeah. Where did we end up with the um reductions you made because of improve coverage? What's the number? So the lot lot lot coverage including yard
amenities went from 39.3 down to 37%. >> Okay. And that's without doing anything with the driveway or patio. >> That is with changing the patio to pvious. Changing the front walk to pvious but not uh changing the driveway to >> Right. And not reducing the size of the
patio. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> 37's a little heavy. um that reflect his his question that uh >> you may want to do something then
>> you take the driveway I know you don't >> sorry >> if you take the driveway the 396 take that out I think it comes out to 34.4 four. Yes. >> Which is below the 35 >> then you don't need a variance.
>> Is that the entire drive or just part? >> The entire entire >> Well, you got 610. So it's not the entire >> but there's like a cut up. >> Yeah. I'm saying but based on these numbers if you if you change everything keeping what you what you're proposing
you're down to 34.4. So you eliminate the barriers. >> Yeah. That's good. I think the pavers are a lot more expensive than asphalt. >> It's not our concern, but >> Well, I don't think there's any changes to the driveway currently proposed.
Right. >> Correct. >> I think there are. I think >> it's going to be repaid. >> Just repaid as I'm just saying the cost for >> I'm not I'm not even thinking about costs. >> I know you're not. >> I'm I'm strictly putting it out. >> 34.4. That's all. Just put it out. Thank
you, Mr. >> Craig. Anything further? >> Uh, not sure heard an answer. >> Okay. >> Would you be helpful? >> Well, yeah. Rather than all papers. >> Okay. Um, so we'd like to propose um
because we have a very odd driveway. Um, the straight run that goes from the street to the garage door. We would like to when we repave, keep that and the portion to the left of that, take it out and grass and and put uh grass in there. >> That's a good idea. >> And now I'm going to have a tough time
coming up with that number though. Scale >> like a quarter of the driveway, right? >> I'm sorry. >> Like where it's a quarter of the driveway. >> Um quarter of the current. >> Yeah, roughly. Um it is a third. is the if I can not to be the bearer of
bad news. >> Are you adding bedrooms upstairs right or downstairs? >> All right. >> What'll happen is you're going to fall into RSIs that it will not probably meet the RSIS as far as parking.
Oh, because we're taking that portion now. >> Probably. >> Oh, so we we would be creating a problem if we >> we might be creating a waiver minius the minimus waiver from RSIS. No, >> I I don't think a car will fit there. >> It's very >> So you might have it anyway quite frankly.
>> Yeah, I think I think the current only allows for two legal parking spaces as opposed to the three. I think that is required. Yeah, already already we require the waiver way it currently is. So, we can further reduce by taking that
out. Uh, I'm being conservative because I don't have my scale, but I made it a little bit larger than what's a little bit smaller than what's there. Um, 2% an additional 2% bringing it down from 37 to 35%. The only way there is
>> what the waiver the RSI's compliance >> we can give that >> yes >> so >> if the if the coverage is going to be compliant 35% you could choose how to divvy up the reduction in pavement
either narrow the driveway take a little bit off the patio whatever works to fit within that requirement or change the walkway if you need to something like that. Um, >> right. >> And then the board would have to grant
the waiver for the RSIS as well. >> And it would still need rear yards. >> Yeah, they still need that variance. >> So, we're okay with doing that, right? >> Yeah. So, we're okay with taking that portion of the driveway off.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> So, we're going from 43 now. >> No, down one. Yeah. Correct. So, Miss Crown, if you would, would would you read back where we are at this at this point? >> So, now we have the rear yard setback
variance of 19 ft. The building coverage variance of 32%. The lot coverage without yard amenities is going to be reduced slightly as well. Um >> 31 to 29,
>> but now it'll be from 33 to 31% with the driveway reduction. >> Okay. So the driveway is not considered your automated. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So yes, then yeah, we're going down two percentage points there. >> I was already down 30.
No, >> I don't think that uh >> the only >> Yeah, that didn't change till now. >> You think of the last one? We we had 31 on the last application. >> I don't think we we didn't reduce anything with the house till now. I don't think >> just to drive,
>> but I'm leaving the math to them. >> Would 31% be >> 31.08 is okay. >> And then with amenities down to 35 >> and then you'll comply with the yard
>> the lot coverage with >> yard amenities at 35%. >> That is correct. And that will all all those reductions will be from installing permeable pavers for the patio, the front walkways,
eliminating a portion of the driveway and reducing uh replacing it with grass or some other permeable surface. The deck the underneath the deck is going to be you're getting you're already getting that discount. So there's not going to be any permeable or impervious surfaces
under there. and it's going to have open joints. Um the you'll comply with the storm water management requirements and the burough engineers recommendations and that's all I had.
>> Anything further from the board professionals with that I'll look for a motion on the application. Move we approve the application for variance for 320 Alexic Tin Avenue Lexington Drive sorry block 1106 lot 26
uh concerns due to the conditions that M. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Craig. Is there a second? >> Second Scotier. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kaslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Craig. >> Yes. Miss Bolan, >> yes. >> Mr. Gibbons,
>> yes. >> Mr. Salva, >> yes. >> Mr. Gotier, >> yes. >> Councilman Glass, >> yes. >> And Miss, >> yes. Okay, the motion passes. >> Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. >> One second before we move on to the next. >> Yeah, we're going to take a We're going
to take a fivem minute recess just around. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> It can wait. I just wanted to go off what council said before about it can wait. Okay. It's not urgent. All right. Um have a motion to recess for
five minutes. Okay. >> All in favor? I same. >> Now 853 will reconvene. Let's come back at 9:00. >> We don't being all set. Okay,
we are now back in session. This is the municipal land use boardsboro River, Wednesday, May 27th, 2026. Time now is 9:03. Um I'm going to briefly call the role
now that our das has changed. Mr. Craig >> here, >> Miss Bolan >> here, >> Mr. Given >> here, >> Mr. Salva >> here, >> Mr. Kodier >> here, >> and then Mr. Kigo is absent. Also present is our special board counsel,
Mark Weman, our burough engineer, Mr. Costa, and zoning officer, Mr. De. Our next item on this evening's agenda under new business is for Pacific Outdoor Advertising LLC. Property is 14
Route 4 West, Block 14, I'm sorry, block 1402, lot 4 application seeking preliminary and final minor site plan approval and various variances in connection with the installation and operation of a two-sided static
billboard. We have the applicants council and engineer with us this evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. It's Robert Falcon from the Loft Steven on behalf of the applicant Pacific Outdoor Advertising LLC and we just want to
bring up an issue. The last time we were here, we submitted a letter dated March 12th, 2026 and uh regarding the completeness and we just wanted to make sure that that's part of the record and would could be marked as an exhibit if it's not. I don't know if Mr. Leman, >> what's what's the date of the round?
>> March 12th, 2026. Our objection to being deemed incomplete at the priority. >> Yeah, that's that's in the files and that's part of the round. >> Great. Now, we just also want to bring up that this application we were there was a prior application that the board was aware that application is finished.
The resolution was issued and this tonight will be a se beginning of a separate new application that while there may be overlapping experts and testimony this property stands on its own the plans exhibits the review letters and testimony will be limited to
just this proceeding and be board and I'm sure they're well aware should not consider the prior application as any part of that. With that said, this application concerns 14 Route 4 West, block 1402, lot 4 in the Burough River Edge. The applicant seeks preliminary
and final site plan approval together with necessary use height and related bulk variance to permit a static double-face billboard on a single monopole along the Route 4 corridor. The proposed sign is static. It is not a digital sign. It is 60 ft in height with
two 10 1/2x 36 ft sign faces each of 3778 square ft for a total sign area of 756. The the sign faces are oriented towards Route 4 rather than the residential party property to the north.
The applicant recognizes that the ordinance the burls ordinances do not provide any zone in which a billboard may be located as a permitted use. Therefore, there's no location under which this type of advertising can be undertaken in the burrow without seeking
a use variance before this board. And that's why we're here tonight. As a result of there being no specific ordinance allowing it, there's no bulk standards for this and the related height and setback relief must be uh understood in that context as the
applicant is seeking the necessary use variance, height variance, and related bulk relief. So the board can evaluate the specific structure on this route 4 corridor rather than treating the absence of the billboard specific standards as an automatic basis for denial. The fact that the ordinance does
not provide for a location does not end the analysis. It is precisely why the variance process exists. The board's task is to consider whether this particular site at this route 4 corridor satisfy the statutory criteria for the relief requested and the test and we believe the testimony and evidence on
the record will provide for that proof. And the applicant will present testimony from an engineer and a planner in support of this application. The engineer will uh will address the revised plans and technical review comment. Planner will address the requested variance relief including site
suit suitability, the positive and negative criteria and the relationship of the proposed use to the route for corridor. We were made aware that the board's planner wasn't going to be present tonight. So we told our planner not to come. So we we will respect that he would obviously have questions and we
wanted to have the testimony tonight. So we'll just proceed with our engineer tonight and uh we're ready to go forward if you guys have any other questions of me. >> Thanks Mr. Fox. Any questions before >> clarity? So it's a new application tonight. Is that what I'm understanding?
Don't they haven't presented testimony yet? This was this is the first night of testimony for the application. They were here just on completeness previously. >> I think Mr. Falconer was just trying to demarcate between this application and >> and the application that was denied
previously. >> Oh, okay. That's what I Yeah, I was >> because it's the same. I mean, they'll be the same people testifying. I just wanted to clarify that this is not the uh I believe it was IAD application. This is a brand new application. Yes, sir. >> Nothing from that application should be considered.
But the previous submitts did we deem I don't you've been gone for a while. Did we deem it complete? I don't >> complete. >> Yeah. >> Right. So from that March letter or what? Right. Or that meeting. >> We submitted that at the last meeting we were deemed incomplete and then we
submitted the letter and now we've been deemed complete. We just wanted to make that part of the record. >> So when does the uh the time toll till? >> I I don't know all. >> Yeah. I I would have to look. You're talking about the time for the board to act. I would have to go through all the correspondence I've had with Mr. Falcon
starting to determine that. >> Well, we did agree to carry it to tonight and but we, you know, chill, we will carry it to the next available hearing. We're not going to >> I'm not worried about an automatic appro that's >> I always bring this up because I'm that
kind of guy. >> That's all. >> Thank you. >> I understand the floor. We're going to call our first witness. >> Please raise your right hand for you swear from the testimony you're about to give us the truth. All truth, nothing but the truth is God. >> I do. So for state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us
your business. >> Uh, sure. Good evening. Uh, it's William R. Voter. Last name is Victor O G like girl t like um businesses L2A Land Designs LLC located at 66 Grand Avenue, second floor
Anglewood, New Jersey 07631. Mr. Voy, could you please state your profession? >> Uh, sure. I'm the civil engineer on the project. >> How long have you practiced? >> Um, going on roughly 25 years. >> And is your license in good standing?
>> Uh, it is. >> And has he testified previously before this board? >> I have. >> Keep going. The board will accept this as an expert. >> Yeah. >> Any questions about Mr. Vot's qualifications from the board?
Yeah, I didn't think so. You may. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Boy, could you please describe the scope of the engagement with respect to this project? >> Sure. We were hired to prepare the site plans that were submitted as part of the
application. Um and as part of that we also uh had our subconsultant prepare a uh a property survey >> and that survey was is entitled topographic survey is a property prepared by William BLS
of Lakeland surveying consisting of one sheet and revised April 9th 2026. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And that was previously submitted to the board. Uh >> that's correct. And the plans have uh been uh that's been reflected on the site plans as well. Now, have you physically inspected the
property to undertake this engagement? >> Uh, yes. I've been to the property several times. >> Now, could you please confirm with the board the basic elements of the proposed billboard? >> Uh, sure. Um, so again, I have the uh set of site plans that were submitted as
part of the application. I don't know if you want to mark them as an exhibit. >> I just refer to it by date so we can make sure we get >> Sure. It's a three-page set consisting of drawing C-01 through C-03 uh revision 2 dated uh 422 2026.
>> And did you prepare these plans? >> I did. >> And is that your firm's sealed signature only? >> It is. >> And these plans that are appearing tonight are have not been modified to the ones that were submitted to the board. Is that correct? >> Uh no, they're the same plans. Um, so again, uh, we're the property is located
at 14 New Jersey State Highway, Route 4. We're on the westbound side of Route 4. Uh, it's lot 4, block 1402. Uh, it's found on your tax map 14 and we're in the C1 commercial neighborhood business zone. Um,
what I'm going to do is I'm just going to flip to an aerial photograph, which I can label A1. Was that included in the package? >> No, it was not. >> Then let's call that A1. >> So A A1 is just an aerial image of the
uh of the area and the subject property. I highlighted the property um in red. It's a corner lot. Um it has frontage. Uh so orientation to the right of the page is north. Um Route four uh is to
our south. Route 4 traverses east and west. Uh west being to the top of the page. Uh our proposed site is on the uh northerly side of the westbound uh portion of Route 4. It's at the intersection of Lake View Street. Um
it's a it's a relatively small piece of property. It's it's it's a 6,995 square foot. That's about.16 acres. It's an irregular shaped property. Uh, for the most part, I'd say
it's triangular in in nature. Um, there's an existing com two-story commercial building uh on the subject lot. Uh, there's a single driveway. Um, roughly 12 to 13 feet in width. Uh, on
the northerly side uh against the residential uh neighbor that leads to a parking area that's directly behind the building. Um, in that building there are two uses, two commercial uses. There's the um there's an architect and there's
an astrology business. Um, I'll get into that a little further on in testimony. Um, we're not impacting um any of the site circulation by the placement of the billboard uh foundation on the property.
Um, and uh, I'm going to get into some of the parking upgrades that we have presented on the application. There was, if you remember, uh, when we were here for our completeness hearing, there's a there was a portion of the property that the owner was utilizing as their parking
area which was not part of their property. It was part of the DOT rightway. Um, we did a up updated title search. Um, there are no easements. uh granting the property owner use of that
small portion of the property that's in the DOT rightway. So we have um taken that into consideration. We updated the survey based on the new title report which slightly um
amended the property boundary along Route 4. There was a newer map in the title search that showed a different uh radius along the property line that's that's uh shared with Route 4. So we we
calculated that into the updated survey. It relatively it reduces the size of the property by approximately 37 square feet. Um, but again, we uh I I'll get into testimony about um how we're going to
restripe and reutilize that parking area uh to accommodate the most amount of parking spaces that we feel that we can fit uh in that area in the back. >> I have another exhibit just for
testimony. I'll label that A2. A2 is just a color rendering of the site plan. Uh sheet C-02. It has the same date revision to dated 42226. Um the only difference between this
sheet and the sheet that was submitted as part of the application, we just added color to it just just for testimonial purposes. Um so again we we highlighted the property in red. Um Route 4 is on the left hand side or
on the southern side of the property. Uh uh it travels uh westbound west and eastbound direction but we are on the uh the westbound portion of the site. that that portion of the DOT rightway that I
was speaking of before is is this small portion just to the west uh in the rear of the of the building that was paved and it was being utilized as parking. Um so I I just wanted to point out that
area we've we've present we're going to present some improvements to work around that area. Um, but I'll get to that later on. Um, our proposed application is for a um proposed static billboard.
Uh, it's going to be two-sided. Um, the sign is going to the panels on both sides of the sign are going to be uh 10 and 1/2 ft tall by 36 foot in width. And the total height of the sign
above the above the ground is 60 feet. It's supported by a single uh foundation and monopole. So the uh structure itself when when you see it vertically it looks like a flag. That's how I would describe
it. Um we typically billboards uh have a V so that the sign faces are oriented to the traveling public who we're advertising to. Uh this particular sign has a 25 foot uh V separation at the
back. Um the setbacks uh as far as the location of the proposed sign um I pushed it as close to the Route 4 rightway as
possible. I put the uh foundation just out of the parking area uh in there. We have a a small uh grass landscape area that's between the existing parking area and route four. Uh I put the foundation
within there. I protected it with uh concrete ballards or concrete filled uh steel ballards uh from the parking area. Uh and then the superructure of the sign uh sits above uh the parking area. the
the sign does not uh can lever over the existing building. However, it does can lever over the existing parking area. Um so our just for our bulk table our um
the permitted height in the zone is six is 30 feet. We're proposing 60 ft for the proposed billboard. Um the front yard setback uh is also 30 feet in the zone. Uh we're at 2.28 feet. Uh and that
that is measured that is measured to the um the closest vertical uh piece of the sign face to the front property line along Route 4. Um the sideyard setback uh is actually
we don't have a sideyard setback. So, it's not a tweetable. Um, our rear yard setback is for the mid is 20 ft. Uh, we're at 9.37 ft. Uh, and again, the rear the rear
property is uh the northerly property line um where we are adjacent to residential uses. Uh, so that's where we have the uh the 93. Um, as far as uh the the parking on the
site, um, I pulled the property card um, from your tax assessor's office. Um, the building has a total uh, gross square footage of 1,612 square feet. Um, tenant number one,
who's the architect, occupies 552 square foot. And then the astrology tenant whose tenant number two occupies the remainder that's 1,60 square feet. Um when you uh use that and calculate
the required parking for office, business and professional uses, it's one for every 250 square foot of gross floor area. >> 150 sorry >> uh for every 250 square foot. One for 250.
So when you do the math, uh it comes out to 6.45 spaces are required. Uh so I round it up to seven per your ordinance. Um what I'm showing on the proposed application is uh six parking spaces uh
including one ADA stall and one compact stall. Um the compact stall, your ordinance doesn't permit compact uh spaces. So that would be a variance for that stall size. Um but I was able to
get six spaces on the on the subject property. Um including that compact space. I am limited to the drive aisle. I I don't quite have 24 foot uh for the
totality of the parking area. Um I do have um 20.45 ft is the narrowest uh width of the drive aisle. Um so I have when you come into the back of the parking lot um
directly behind the uh proposed building I have my first ADA space with its access aisle. Then I have three adjacent uh headin parking stalls towards Route 4. the compact space is is at the very
end. Um, this is this triangular piece is is the piece that was removed because that was part of the DOT rightway. And then I have two uh heading parking spaces to the west um for a total of
six. Um so again we we are asking for uh parking variance um where six is seven is required. We're providing six with some dimensional variances uh in that the
tenants um very low usage in parking. The uh the architect is the owner of the building. Um he is the only uh occupant of his business. He has normal business hours during the day. The astrologologist is a single person. Um
she use typically has um off business hours to accommodate her clients. They're either early in the morning before their customers go to work or when they're done with work, they come after hours. So, there really is a
separation of the tenant usage on the property. Um, rarely do you have both tenants there at the same time. Not that I'm saying it doesn't happen, but occasionally, you know, we could have up to
two parking spaces being used. And if one or both of them had a client at the same time, a total of four um spaces would be utilized at any one time on the property based on the current uses. Um
so I am providing six spaces. So um we think it's uh sufficient for the current usage of the building. >> Now does the billboard itself require any additional budget? >> Uh no the sign does not.
Then I'm just going to flip back to the site plans. I'm going to flip to the third page, which is our elevation. And uh this helps you get a perspective of the of the sign itself. So again, 60
foot sign height. It's a 10 and a half foot tall, 36 foot in width. I have a three-foot apron that's below it that houses the billboard sign number and the uh the applicant's name that's that's in
accordance with the DOT with their DOT permit. Um this particular static sign uh has a vinyl copy. So it's it changed at least once a month if not more depending on uh you know the leases that
they have. But I'm typically for a static sign uh the copy is changed at least once per month per side. So I always have a technicians going out to the site at least on one occasion occasion per month. It could be two um
or three depending on if it's a twoe lease or or a four-week lease on the on the final copy. Um the sign face itself is illuminated with three exterior LED light fixtures.
Um we've all passed billboards uh on the on the roadways. Uh those lights shine uh they're angled towards the sign phase. Um there is we we did provide some photometrics um of the spillage off
to the side. Um these lights are capable of dimming. So we can dim them uh by 60%. So we can dim them down to just 40% output. So what I did is um I calculated what the light
level would be at at the property lines assuming that we were uh going down to the 40%. So at the at the rear of the property where we're adjacent to the residential, the billboard is 10.84 complete four
feet um in distance. So with the um with the light dimming reduction I would be at 1.6 foot candles and that's at an elevation of 77.5
ft. Okay. So the ground elevation below that is approximately 25.5. So at approximately 50 ft in the air, that's where the reading of 1.6 ft
candles is. the light as you drop down below the sign. Once I get to elevation 67.5 uh which is um roughly
what is that 12 feet lower uh than than my prior reading. I'm at 0.1 foot candles and then anything lower than that level uh basically gets to zero. Um so that
that light uh reading is higher than the peaks of both the roof on the subject property and the adjacent residential use uh next to us.
We're closer to the front property line along Route 4. Um so it's a little more challenging uh to get that light in in compliance. I am closer uh to the problem. My closest is at 3.32 feet and
I will have uh assuming a 40% reduction. My light level is 6.6 foot candles. Um it is uh against the DOT rightway uh not residential. Um
and it we do have the same reduction factor um at 60 at the elevation 67.5 I I do get down to the 0.1 foot candles. Uh but again at the you know 50s something feet above the ground um along
the DOT rideway I I would be at a 6.6 foot camera. Um the lights also are capable of having shields. If you look at this uh this picture, we can have what's called a houseside shield on one or both sides uh
which will help reduce the light even less uh at the property lines. Um so especially towards the residential uh I think meeting the one foot handle at the property line with the shields um I
would have a a much better um opportunity to meet the one foot handle by implementing those shields. My other suggestion would be um I I could look at possibly reducing the number of lights on the sign phase to two instead of
three and just see what that does to the numbers. Um that could very well uh reduce my uh setback or my lighting to the residential um to the rear to be at one foot candle or below without having the
shields. Um, I don't think it's going to help me in my front yard though. So, I still will need to ask for the variance uh for the lighting. Uh, but it would only be for the front yard um requirement. >> But if the board wanted to shield, the
applicant would agree to that as a condition of approval. >> Yes. And I could I could I could talk um I could talk with the manufacturer and see if we can implement what that shielding would do uh as far as lighting. So, I could present that. I know we're we we are potentially coming
back for our planner and if uh if that information is available at the time I could I could certainly present it. >> That that um in a nutshell that's that's generally the um application and what's presented on our site plans. >> Okay. What do you have? I have some more
questions for But have you had the opportunity to review the municipal review correspondence? I don't know if you want to. >> Uh, sure. >> Yeah. Now did I believe do you have in front of you if we go to item board engineers review correspondence of May 1526
with respect to item two a title report was filed with the board which reflects a covenant of record indeed book 114 page 466 that is is that correct you found in this restriction >> uh yes that that's listed on the title report
>> and you provided a copy of that to the board now what would do Do you believe that restriction would have any adverse impact on this? >> Uh we don't think it has any impact on the uh the construction of the site. >> Okay. Now with respect to item nine, was
the traffic study conducted? Um no, we there was no professional traffic engineer on the subject property. I I provided testimony on the use of the building and the adequacy of the proposed parking network that were u uh that's before you on this
application. >> Now, do you believe that service vehicles will be able to operate on site without adversely affecting internal traffic circulation? >> Uh yes, they they do today. Um they do today. there's uh there there's no um
there's no negative impact that I'm aware of um in in my discussions with property owner um with deliveries. Um we even uh had our driller look at the site uh to see for access for getting
equipment to the uh back of the building. They had no issue with utilizing the existing on-site driveway. >> Great. No, with respect to item 11, do you have a structural collapse analysis or any data identifying the potential fall radius in the event of a failure?
>> No, we don't have that. >> In your experience appearing before municipal land use boards, have you ever been asked to provide such a study related to a billboard? >> Um, only only at this board on our prior application. >> Is so is that something you understand to be atypical of a standard submission
to the board? >> I I don't find it uh being typical. Are you aware of any provision in the Burl's ordinance, site plan checklist or redevelopment regulation that requires a collapse radius analysis for this application? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Now, from the from an engineering
standpoint, does the mere fact that a freestanding structure is located over a parking area automatically require collapse radius analysis? >> Uh, I'm not a structural engineer, but to my knowledge, no. or any other vertical structures such as light poles, freestanding signs, canopies, and
utility structures commonly located in near parking areas. >> Absolutely. >> And do you typically provide wall analysis for those? >> We do not. >> Now, when is this uh will the billboard be required to comply with applicable building code and structural engineering
standards? Yes, it'll meet the all of the uh New Jersey building code regulations. Um and all the UCCC um applicable documents will be submitted. Um the applicant uh typically does a soil boring after approval um which will
they will use to um identify the types of soils and the uh type of foundation that they will uh utilize for the board. And will the final foundation and structural design be reviewed during the construction permit process before the billboard can be built?
>> Yes, there will be a full set of structural plans and calculations that are submitted to your uh building sub code official uh for review. >> So if the board were to grant the requested approval, the applicant could not construct the billboard without the
final structure design that satisfy the applicable code and permit requirements. Is that correct? That's correct. >> Now, based on your review, do you see anything unusual about this proposed billboard that would require a special analysis beyond the normal structural design and permitting process?
>> No. This is a fairly typical setup for a billboard structure. >> In your professional opinion, when designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable codes and standards, will the proposed billboard be structurally sound and safe? >> It will. >> And have you built designed billboards built over parking lots before? >> Yes.
>> And have they been built? >> Correct. Yes. you aware of any safety concerns with those? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Now, with respect to item 12, the board engineer asked whether protective measures needed to prevent ice, snow, or debris from falling into pedestrian
areas of the parking lot. Uh, from an engineering standpoint, is the proposed billboard structural comparable to a building roof, canopy, or other structure with broad horizontal surfaces where snow or ice would typically accumulate? >> No, it's it's generally the opposite. Um
most of the features are vertical. Um there are catwalks that are associated um with the technicians changing copy, but those are graded slats um very thin where ice cannot uh ice and snow cannot
build up on. Um I haven't uh in in in all of my billboard experience over the years, I haven't made any modifications to the structure for snow and ice. Now, with respect to item 13, if approved, would the would would the
applicant provide spikes or screens or other such device to prevent roosting nesting on the billboard? >> Uh, no, because I believe it's not acceptable. >> So, would the applicant how would the applicant stop birds and from nesting? >> Um, Sure. So, we're we're going to be at
the site at least once per month. We could um I I I would I would suggest just writing that into the maintenance agreement that anytime the technician is there that they would inspect for any nests and and we would have them uh
removed accordingly. >> So the applicant would agree to that as a condition of approval. I I yes I I think that's probably the most logical uh solution um since we cannot use spikes or netting which I think would be I I agree that those would be
problematic to the technicians who are changing copy. >> Now with respect to item 14 are there any negative visual impacts of the neighboring residential properties? Uh, no. We oriented the signs uh so that they would face the traveling public of
Route 4. That's that's uh who we're advertising to. Um the residential properties directly to the north of us. Um if they have the ability to see the sign, um they would be seeing the um the backside or the V of the sign uh
directly behind them. >> And you designed the billboard specifically for that reason. Correct. >> Correct. Now with respect to item 15, the board engineer asked whether a shadow study was prepared. Was one prepared in for this application? >> They did not prepare one. No.
>> From a typical engineering perspective, are shadow studies typically prepared at the site plan or variance stage for a freestanding billboard structure? >> Uh I have not done one for a billboard. I have seen architects do them for buildings of over a certain height. Now,
and this bill this billboard would not have the same type of massing or footprint that would typically generate the need for a shadow study. >> No, I don't I don't believe so. Uh but again, I would I would uh you know, if if a shadow study is is
something that's required, um it's it's something that the applicant may look into. >> Okay. Now, with respect to item 16, is the proposed billboard located at least 300 feet from any billboard on the eastbound side of four? On the eastbound side,
there's a there's an existing sign uh that I believe is is um in Pamis um that's just over 300 foot um linear distance on the eastbound side of Route 4, so on the opposite side of the roadway. And is that a consideration
from the NJ DOT when issuing a permit? >> No, it's on the opposite side. They only consider signs that are on the same side of the of the uh the travel way. >> And the applicant did obtain a permit for this billboard location. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Submitted.
>> Yes. >> And I believe it was expiring May, but is it your understanding the applicant has renewed the permit? >> They renew them every year. so we can get you the updated uh run copy of the uh of the new lease uh for 2026 to 2027.
U but those distances just just so you're aware billboards the distances are measured on the same side of the roadway. So from static to static 300 linear feet is the minimum. From a static um
from a static to a digital it's also 300 linear feet. But from a digital to a digital, it's 3,000 linear feet. >> Now, with respect to item 19, could you briefly just describe the construction
methodology for the billboard? >> This was for number what? >> 19. >> Uh, sure. So um like I said after after approvals we will have a a soil boring conducted that will give us the makeup of the subsurface soils that the
structural engineer will use to design the U foundation. Um typically you'd have a it's the monopole is a four or five foot diameter steel um cylindrical
column. um they augur a hole in the ground. Uh typically for a sign that's 60 foot tall, we're probably going to be in the neighborhood of roughly 40 to 40 to 50% of its height in the ground. Uh
that hole is augured roughly a foot larger in diameter than the um diameter of the monopole. And then the uh the shaft of the monopole steel structure is then lowered into that um augured hole
and then is back filled with concrete. The operation is actually goes very quickly. Um we just did a 100 foot uh sign in Jersey City. Uh we went down 49 feet. Um I had
that one set and and done in two days. Now could all will the all the construction activities occur within the subject property or will they need access to the right way? >> No, we are as I said our driller went to the site they they can accommodate through the existing driveway.
>> Now could you briefly just go through like a typical maintenance of the billboard? What would be what would undertake when somebody maintain it? >> Uh sure. Uh the technicians like I said they go to the site uh at least once a month uh to change copy. There's
typically two technicians that show up um to the facility. Um they would um climb the the structure. It's it's a similar setup to a telephone pole where you have ladder rungs that are at a higher height so that an individual
needs either a extension ladder or some kind of scissor lift to get to the uh first rung. It's usually 15 or 16 foot off the ground. Um, and then the technicians would, uh, of course with safety equipment, uh, scale the sign,
um, get to the top of the sign, and then they would unbuckle the existing vinyl copy. It's basically a very large sheet that gets draped over the, uh, sign structure. They would fold and take that down, and then they would, uh, replicate
that with the new copy, uh, and attach it in the same fashion. And what type of vehicle would they bring into site? >> It's typically it it could be a, you know, a small pickup truck. Um, you know, it it it's typically nothing
larger than a pickup truck um to to like a Ford 150 um or smaller. Uh it's you don't need um a lot of equipment uh to get there. I think the the biggest piece of equipment you need is that extension ladder.
Now, do you know how the current holder currently handles garbage and recycling on site? >> Uh, I I I believe I believe they have um uh third party waste hauler >> and this application would no way affect
that. >> No, we have we have no um we have no um refuse as part of the um sign application. All of the copy is is taken with us uh recycled and or reused.
>> Now based on your experience designing similar billboard structures, have you experienced any structural failures of any of and have they typically been a safety concern? >> I have not. >> Now based on your engineering view, does the proposed billboard in this application present any unusual material
safety concerns? >> Not to my knowledge. No. Does the proposed billboard generate any vehicular traffic parking demand or operational activity associated with its use >> other than the technicians uh coming to the site to change the copy? Um no u on
occasion. Um you know let's let's say they had uh an ad that ran for an entire year, right? So so a technician wasn't out there for the entire calendar year. At the very minimum, they would come out four times a year quarterly to inspect
the the structure and the and the uh ad that's on the structure. Um again, the the reason for that apron that's at the bottom of the sign is to display the um the owner of the sign and the sign
number. So DOT drives around they um if there's any issues with the any sign that's that's under their permitting um guidelines, they will um immediately contact the uh billboard owner and have
that fixed immediately. >> Now from an engineering perspective, does the proposed billboard create any operational impacts on the neighboring properties or surrounding roadways? No, everything is done on site. >> Now, do you believe from an engineering
and site plan perspective, does the proposed billboard creating any substantial adverse impact on site circulation, parking operation, drainage, traffic safety, lightning or neighborhood on the neighboring properties? >> Uh, no, not to my knowledge. In your opinion, subject to the
conditions and any technical revisions required by the board and its professionals, can the site plan be finalized in substantial compliance with the applicable engineering and site plan requirements? >> Uh, yes. I I think there were a couple of comments in here that we could uh address I think adequately. Um, again,
just just the lighting. Um, I would I don't think I would uh be able to meet the requirement at the front yard. >> And that's to the highway side. >> Yes, to the highway side. I I I just don't think that's achievable. >> I don't have any further questions.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh turn out to our professionals. Mr. >> Cost you before you begin, Mr. Do you swear from testimony about to give us the truth to all the truth about the truth? Absolutely.
Just uh let's see. Parking the um obviously the existing parking lot encroaches now. So now that's on the record. What are we doing with the existing paving that encroaches? >> Uh that's a good question. Um I I wasn't
going to touch it. It's not uh on our property. Um I was just going to leave it. Uh we were going to stripe around it and uh put uh parking bumpers to delineate the property line.
So we're going to leave the the plan is going to show the encroachment and the board is going to vote on a plan allowing the encroachment to continue. I don't think I'll defer to the attorney, but I don't I don't think he can do that.
Secondly, if you take the the car stops, the bumpers, and you move them, I think that's what your plan says, and you're modifying the parking, why wouldn't you put curbing that's required under the ordinance? Were you seeking relief for that?
>> Uh, for the curbing, there's no curbing out there now, but let me just flip back to the site plan. If you look at the grading, the existing grading, it it looks like that parking area sheet flows uh from the center out
to both sides. Um there are no drains uh on the property. So if I did put up curbing, um I I channelizing the the run Well, if you put curbing that's required under the ordinance, you'd have to put
in drainage to to manage that storm water. So, if you're improving the parking lot, restriping it, removing some of the parking spaces, wouldn't you would are you going to seek relief on that or >> uh Yes, we are seeking on that.
>> So, you're going to seek relief. Okay. >> What's the ordinance that requires the curb? It's under the I believe it's under the site plan ordinance and it's under the zoning ordinance as well. >> But I'll verify. Um >> but I I think back to your first question about removing the asphalt. Um
I don't think the applicant has any issue or the owner has any issue with removing that. Um I would just need to get permission from DOT to go on to their property to do that demolition. I can certainly do that. that helps with
the uh the bearing or the waiver relief for the curving. That's why I do that. >> Okay. >> Um >> and then I probably wouldn't need the uh the bumper box there as well.
>> Well, again, I don't know if there there's a there's a slope there. >> There is a slope. There's a slope there that >> So, I I would think you have to do some sort of a protection. So a car doesn't go off to slow. >> I I still have the bumper blocks for the
headin parking stalls. Uh it's just at the corner there. Um we could remove those. I I can leave them. It's it's either way. >> Okay. And then I think you touched on it, but maybe you can very slowly just the the traffic circulation. You said
the billboard would have no effect on any traffic circulation whatsoever. Could you just demonstrate how a car would maneuver in the parking lot under the proposed parking lot? >> Uh, sure. So, the sign is up above the uh the foundation is off beyond the uh
limits of the um asphalt edge of pavement. Um, so the cars have full utilization of the access aisles and all the park space. >> So, how how would you do because you're modifying the parking lot now, right? With >> strike. Yes. >> Well, again, it's It goes back to
circulation, which is obviously goes back to the ordinance. So, could you just demonstrate because you're saying the the billboard has no impact on it, but you're it's the chicken and the egg. The construction of the billboard is
requiring now the modification of the parking. Correct. So, you're modifying the parking. You don't meet the setbacks. I'm sorry. The um backup distance under the ordinance required for 90 degree parking. So, how
would one maneuver if I pull in? How does how do I maneuver and turn around and get out? >> Sure. Uh we would um those parking stalls um would utilize that again the
the narrowest is 20.45 ft. Um so yes, it is substandard. Um, what I could do is I could eliminate the compact space. It seems like it's really it's not permitted. Um, it's a
very, you know, undersized space. I could just stripe that entire spot, just have uh, five parking spaces on site and I could use that as a turnaround area. So, so a car would use that as a K turn.
So that that would be my solution if if we weren't granted the um or there wasn't enough evidence to grant the >> I don't think that's what I asked. >> What did you ask? >> You you were questioned by your attorney
and you answered this has absolutely no impact on traffic circulation. I believe that was one of the questions. I believe it was into the surrounding road networks, but >> I think it's it would I thought it was on site traffic circulation. >> I believe it was to the surrounding properties and uh so local roadways.
>> Then can we ask the question? You're saying it has no impact on the traffic circulation on site. >> So the traffic circulation on site is existing as it is today. All we're doing is striping. They park in this fashion today.
>> Well, no, it's not. You're removing >> a portion of it is on somebody else's property. How they utilize it. You you're right now the proposal to build the billboard requires a modification of the parking lot that's utilized by other tenants
tenencies that are on the property. Now, your attorney just corrected me and said when he asked you that question, he meant the circulation around on route four on on the side streets on the marginal road so on and so forth. But
how does the traffic on site on site? You if you're saying that you didn't you didn't answer that question that it has no impact. >> I think I did that. The foundation is not being located in any existing asphalt areas that are utilized by the
existing parking on the site or circulation on the site. So regardless if I put the pole in the ground, the circulation on the property is the circulation of the property. I am not impacting that. >> No, but you're changing it. I'm changing
it because we're not the the land owner was utilizing one portion of the property that >> he was not allowed to use. >> I understand. >> So that's why I'm showing >> I understand that because I I said that at the last meeting months ago, but
>> now you're modifying the parking lot. You're modifying it and and the reason you're modifying it is because you're proposing to construct a billboard on this particular site. So now by modifying the parking that you have existing existing tenencies on you're
impacting the traffic circulation on site because of your proposal. You don't meet the backup requirements and I asked you a question it does this proposal >> with all respect I answered your question for has no impact on the site
circulation. >> Okay we'll go back to the same thing. It does. It It's It You're incorrect. It does. Your proposal by building and proposing this structure on this particular piece of property on a piece of property that has tenencies and an
existing parking lot that you're modifying. You have to look at that in order to make sure that those tenencies and the parking requirements are met. So now you're going to remove a compact space because that's going to be your
turnaround, but you go back to where the physical billboard is located that no one's going to hit that that pylon. And I agree with that, but you still have the parking lot has to work. And again, I thought the question was different that was posed to you by your attorney
and you answered there is no impact to traffic circulation, but there is. But again, we were I presented how I was going to restripe the parking area. It again, it has no impact. The sign has no impact on the parking area whatsoever.
If I didn't have a sign here and I was required to restripe the parking area, I would do it in the same fashion irregardless if I had a sign and foundation. This is the most adequate parking that I can physically fit on
park. of of the site itself. What I'm doing is trying to accommodate your question for turnaround and my suggestion would be to eliminate and go to N5 spaces before you continue. I I never asked you
to to uh say that I wanted you to accommodate me. What I asked you was, could you explain to the board? >> What? What I asked you was, could you explain to the board how the on-site traffic circulation works? >> You
said, "I'm going to remove the compact space." I didn't say remove the compact space. I said, "Just tell the board how it works." So, in a minute, you looked at it and I guess it does it work the way you proposed it? The way I proposed
it, I did leave additional room uh on the outside of those two spaces that are head in. I think those are the most problematic and I believe that's where your letter was stayed in. Um so I did leave additional room uh between those
parking spaces and the property lines for those cars to have a little bit more room to swing out. But I think just engineering wise based on the utilization of the property by the two tenants and that I could and
it was a suggestion just to remove that compact space. It was it was my suggestion to help uh further uh benefit the traffic circulation because I am asking for the lead on the width of the
access aisle. >> Well, it's it's not the access aisle. It's the It's the backup distance. Have you do you normally because you you also testified that you've done a lot of these the billboards? >> Yes.
>> Um and there were other questions asked as far as fall and ice and this and you said no, there's no issues. You have no issues. You've done How many have you done? >> Uh probably around 60. >> 60. Okay. And it's you built them. You physically you were the general kind.
>> We don't. So what what did you actually do? Do you you say you design them? You you design the structures >> the site plans. So there >> no there there were there were quite a
few questions as far as it's no problem. It's it's not typical. It's not this. There was a lot of questions that we could read back in the record. So with your what do you actually what have you actually done as far as actual construction design
structural design uh implementation in the in the field building this >> well we prepare the site lines uh we stay on for construction support if there's any modifications that need to be done but there's a structural engineer that does all the structural
calculations and then there's a driller and there's a there's a general contractor sets us up. >> We I've never testified that we build anything. >> No, you testified this this evening that you've you've been involved in a lot of these and you've there were a lot of
questions asked by your attorney and you answered you testified this is typical. This is never done. So on and so forth. >> That's that's correct. in all the approval applications that I've presented to planning and zoning boards
throughout the state. Um, that's that's what I'm answering. >> Okay. But just for the record, for clarity, you've never designed one. You've never physically built one. You've never >> structurally done any of the above. >> Okay. Understood.
Mr. >> Chairman, I think um I think that's it. Okay. >> Mr. Deppkin, any questions? Uh yes I do. Uh chairman, um
what percentage of your applications uh are the um um are the billboards uh located in a parking lot? >> What what percentage? >> Question. What percentage? I I I don't
know what percentage, but generally in or close to the parking areas. That's usually where we have the most uh space, and we we typically like to uh keep them as close to the roadways as possible. So, it's typically in the um in the in
the parking areas. Um I don't have a number off hand, but I would say it's it's probably more than 50%. Um, >> oh okay. >> I would say it's more than 50%. >> And what percentage of the applications
or structures are adjacent to residential properties? uh that we do run into that on occasion, especially along these DOT corridors where uh the uses or the zones directly behind that commercial uh highway
corridor is either a residential use or um a residentially zoned property. So that I I would say again more than 50% of the applications. It's very rare that I
don't have residential zones or uses um that are directly adjacent behind that commercial corridor. >> And you've you've never done evaluations in regards to failures, structural failures close to a residential home?
>> No, not it's never been required uh in in my um experience at the planning and zoning board levels. Um I I don't I don't recall uh having any of the permitted ones uh under construction
that were asked for that other than the structural calculations >> and in the same sense uh in regards to the residential properties um shading or covering for light um that you never did
an evaluation on that. It >> was this for the shadow study or for the lighting study? Uh I would say both. >> So for the lighting, yes. Um we we did present the lighting. Uh we we typically do show that on all our applications. Um
the shadow study. No, I I have not run that. I've run into that when we're building a a large building which has mass. uh the architect typically or one of their subconultants does prepare a shadow study uh to see how that impacts
neighboring properties uh because of the mass of the building. Um again I I don't think the applicant would have an issue if that's a condition of approval to to show the the shadow study. I I I think they would be
uh >> amendable to that request. But I think you stated previously that you didn't think there was an issue with the shadow on a residential property. >> I I don't because again we're we're
running with uh Route 4, which is east and west. So, if the sun rises in the east and falls in the west, >> I believe my shadow would be um either on the property or just into the roadway
or again onto the property or just into the roadway. I I don't believe I would have any impact north and south of the sign. And that's uh to the north is where the residential properties are.
>> Okay. That that's up to the board. Um You also stated that you did an evaluation on the uh on the use of the structure meaning the uh the uh building. >> Uh I'm sorry I don't understand the question.
>> Did you do a evaluation on the use of the building >> the existing building? >> Yes. >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Um so uh I had to uh the board uh requested
Please raise your right hand. Mr. Deputy, if you're going to start making statements and not just asking questions, I'm going to have you sworn in. >> Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give us the truth, all truth, nothing but the truth. So, I'll be gone. >> I do. >> All right. And just for the record, um, you are the the zoning officer in River
Edge, >> correct? >> Okay. Go right ahead. >> Um, the board had requested me to do a uh an evaluation of the use in the building. Um, I don't know whether the board was presented with the photographs
that I had taken. Um, I don't know whether the board wants me to go through uh my findings or whether it's appropriate time. >> No, let's not do that, Mr. Devkin. >> Okay. Uh, nothing nothing further,
chairman. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Just one follow. >> Gotta get you sis. >> Just a question. How would you do a followup on a shadow study as a
condition of an approval? What would that mean? If if obviously like you said the sun comes up in the east and then it it actually travels around and then it sets in the
west. So it's going to cast a shadow different times. Granted, in December 21st when I get depressed because it's winter and then I get very excited coming into June 21st because the days are so long but it changes.
What would happen? And if it's a condition of what what would the condition be if it cast a shadow on the adjacent property that you said you could do it as a condition if it cast a shadow? Do we pick up >> the residential house and move it or do
we not build the bu the billboard or what does that mean? >> No, it's it's it's a good point. Um, look, I mean, we're coming back uh for planning testimony. Um, I can I can talk to the applicant and see if we can get that prepared. >> No, but I don't understand what it
meant. It could be a condition of the approval. What did you What would What did that mean? Maybe it was a poor poor choice of words. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, let's go to it. >> Thank you.
So, uh, sir, you said that, um, over 50% of the billboards that you had, uh, helped plan for or construct or whatnot, um, they were close to parking lots. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, did those parking lots have the same, um, non-conforming parking lots that had issues with cars backing up and proper room and whatnot? uh similar to this application. Um
I'm trying to remember if I have any um off top of my head. Um I mean I I think this this is a I think this is a special site. >> It's a unique site. KN unique uh in the
fact that regardless of whether or not I build anything here or or anything's constructed here, the on-site parking was not conforming. So I think again >> so so those other parking lots, they were conforming.
>> I I would say a majority of of the other projects that I've done, the properties are larger. Um, so we're not in this same unique situation. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, what do you
see as the possible negative impacts on the neighboring residential property? >> Sure. Our our planner is going to give extensive testimony um on the relief that we're seeking and I believe that question would be better answered by
that professional. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Mr. Craig. >> Uh, yeah. First, if you could on the on the uh drawing you you have up and out of the
site plan, can you indicate where the adjacent residential houses are uh in relation to the billboards? Is there I guess there's kind of two sets of them, right? >> Uh, sure. So, I'm back to exhibit A2.
Um, so the the proposed sign is this V-shaped at the top of the property. >> Y >> um this sign to the rear yard, which is to the north, is 9.37 ft. >> And then the adjacent residential
structure that's on lot 3.02 2 is 11.93 feet from that shared property line. >> Okay. >> So roughly round numbers about roughly 20 ft. >> Okay. So that's one and there are other
houses similarly. >> Yes. If you look at the aerial this was exhibit A1. Um again we have that that first home >> uh that's roughly 20 feet from the sign. And then you have similar size lots uh
that are along Lake P Street. >> Okay. All right. I'll go back to the to the site plan. >> I'm looking at where that house is and your you know the your response to the question about kind of negative impact
on the visual environment for the residential was that you know well you see the back of the signs no big deal. The back of those signs is going to be a big monopole and a bunch of structure to hold up the the the signage. Okay. It's
going to start 24 feet above the ground roughly. >> Uh the because the top of your signs at 60 and the sign's 36, right? >> Sure. So, if you go I'm just going to flip back to the site plans to the third sheet.
>> Um so, the the bottom part of the apron. So, there's a three-foot apron that's below it. Uh, it's 46 and a half feet above the ground level. >> How How tall is the sign? >> It's 10 and a half ft.
>> Wide. >> Wide. Wide. It's 36. >> Wide is 36. 10 and 1/2 ft high. And it's at 60 feet. >> It's at 60 ft. And it has three foot apron. >> Okay. So, so that's going to drop down to roughly.
>> Yes. So from the very bottom the very bottom of the apron which is the lowest part to the ground >> right >> is 40 46.5 ft. >> Okay. So 45 feet from 20 feet away
roughly right >> 10 by 36 and you're going to be looking at structural elements of this signage and you don't think that has a negative impact on the visual environment for those houses? Uh again, our I think our
our planner will address those concerns. That's that's part of the planning testimony. >> Okay. Um just it's probably for the planner as well, but is your
opinion that this site is uniquely set up for this use? From an engineering standpoint, >> from strictly an engineering stamp uh point, we are asking for variances. Uh
but physically I can fit a sign uh on the site, >> right? But would you say it's uniquely uh structured to to to for this usage >> for the usage? Well, the size of the sign, we we have a DOT permit uh for the
property. That's our that's our first requirement. Um that brings us before uh the planning municipal level. Um the DOT permit typically will allow a much larger sign. So we've accommodated
a smaller sign base um on this property based on the size constraints of the property. Um, so our DOT permit, I don't have it in front of me, but typically they allow the larger signs that are uh
16 by 60 uh per side. Um, we because of the site constraints on this property, we we felt that a 10636 was the appropriate size for the problem. >> All right. Thank you,
>> Mr. Gibbons. So, there's the shadow issue. Um, and I know this isn't any scientific, but I'm looking at Google Maps and I see a shadow from the trees bordering the
property and the residential property, and those trees are casting a large shadow in these people's backyards. So if we were to put a large 10 by 36 structure
in a similar area as those trees, I have to imagine there's going to be a large shadow over their houses. So we can say which way the sun goes, but it's very clear that there are shadows going from the left side of your picture to the
right side of your picture. >> Well, you're you're saying that Mr. humans. The trees that are on that >> those trees are putting shadows on those houses >> on the houses. >> Correct. Gordon. Now, this is just Google Maps. >> Gotcha. >> But it's still a picture and it's still
showing shadows. So, I can't see how putting a very large two-sided billboard is not going to do more shadow than that. >> Okay. Uh like I said, I I'm I'm not sure how the Google Earth um projects those
shadows. Uh but I I I understand I understand your concerns. I can I can certainly talk to the applicant. We're going to come back. >> Uh if we can prepare that um for you folks as an exhibit, be happy to do that.
>> And you just testified that the so the edge of the billboard to the edge of the property, I assume you're talking about the house on Lake Goo Street, um is 20 feet. So from the edge of your billboard to the edge of their house is 20 feet.
That accurate >> approximate. It's probably a little bit more, but let's go. >> Approximately 19 to 21 ft. Whatever. The setback should be 20 ft. >> Yes. For the rear yard, I agree with you. It should be 20 ft and I'm at 9.37.
>> Right. So we have those setbacks in place to keep structures from structures. understood >> to have the structures further away from each other. So now we're going we're putting a commercial use we're putting a large billboard
next to two people that are going to have this structure basically in their backyard. That's that's a big concern. Plus what I think Mr. Craig said they're looking at the back end of this. They're not looking at the advertising side of it. They're looking at the back end of this.
So, I can't see how this benefits property on Lake View Street at all. And it is I I I see it as a a severe detriment to their property, their property value, and them in their backyard. All they're going to look up at is the backside of this side.
>> Okay. I I understand your concern. I again, I I think it's a better question answered by our planner. >> Okay. Well, I'll certainly ask it of them as well. Um, and then what what exa what variances are we actually asking for? I know it's
the setback that you just mentioned. >> Um, what other variances are actually on the table? >> Use variance is is the first. >> I'm sorry. >> Use variance. >> We'll certainly have the planner go through it, but from the engine from the design, we have a use variance. We have a height variance. Uh, you have a front
yard, you have Okay, so you have the use variance, you have a height variance, you have a front yard setback variance, you have a rear yard setback variance, uh, and then you have several variances that are
associated with the parking. >> Okay. So, I would I would say that this may not be Oh, I'm not going to Okay. Um, All right. Thank you. So, >> I don't have any questions, Miss Bow.
>> Um I I hate to keep going back to parking. Um but you you did a lot you provide a lot of testimony on the parking before anyone even brought it up. Um so you you provided six spaces, but you really can't maneuver.
So once we talk about maneuvering, then that it's cut down to five. Sure. So, the way I had it laid out, I I did provide some additional room with the striping on the site. I think the two
spaces that are that are the really the most difficult um in my opinion are the two head-in spaces uh to the west of the property. Because when you're in this space, when you back out, um that that
that would probably be uncomfortable if someone is parked here in that compact space. >> I think you'd have to back all the way out. >> Um so just that's why I left some additional room. We had some width to I
I I left uh I believe it's three feet uh on both sides roughly um for those cars to maneuver. But I I just looking at the comments in your board engineers letter about circulation. I
anticipated that it was going to be a topic that we're going to talk about, especially for these two parking spaces. I I know that the relief I'm asking for for this compact space is probably a reach. So I think my solution would be
to remove that and make that an area where we could utilize as turnaround. >> Okay. So it's five spaces versus the seven required. >> I I think five spaces um is is probably a more realistic >> Okay. Uh no.
>> Yeah. And some of your testimony you say what you could do um as far as far as lighting you could do shields and you could reduce the number of lights. I would say please do you know not like could because as much as we can reduce
any impact we would want that. So I would I would think it would be a good idea dear to reduce the lights as much as you could and to provide shields. >> Sure. I can certainly talk with the manufacturer about a two light scenario
that I discussed. Um, again, I just don't think I'm ever going to meet your one foot candle at that front property line. I I just regardless of how many lights I have on the structure, I I I don't think I'm going to meet that requirement just because of
the proximity of the structure to the front property. But as much as we can reduce the impact. >> Sure. I I think that's that's an an easy ask for me to uh show that to you folks when I come back.
>> Okay. And I back the same thing the shadow study everybody's talking about where you said you'll try. I think it's a very important study to show us and it would you know it would play into any kind of approval. So I would I would think you'd almost have to come back
with it. um you know for us to seriously consider >> you know reviewing it the impacts. >> Understood. Um again I I'll talk to the applicant and uh we'll express your concerns for the sh
>> and um you were talking about how deep you have to go u with the footing you know for the poll itself. Are there any utilities impacted by by that? Is there anything in the area that you have to watch out for? Um we do uh ground penetrating radar. Uh we
have a third party go out to the site. Um it's actually required before they do any drilling on the site. So even before they go and do the soil test, we have to have a mark out uh done of the area for uh any utilities. Um so no, none are
popping up right now. Um I I I'm trying to remember if I I typically as part of the survey do a a markout already ahead of time. >> I can check my file and see that we if we had done that uh prior uh when I come
back. >> Okay. I think that's it for me. >> Okay. Thank you. Miss Leavine. >> Um just a couple things. The lights whether it's going to be three or two they're on all night. Correct. Our
application is for 247. Yes. >> Um >> not during the day. >> We will turn them off during the day. >> Correct. In the evening hours. >> Right. >> So I would say six to six to six. >> Okay.
>> Roughly. >> All right. Um that's pretty much it >> depending on the time of year obviously in a winter you know they would turn on earlier >> right >> um you know there would be a photo cell that's associated with the lights so
>> and mainly my other thing was also this the shadow study that's >> understood >> definitely >> that was it >> thank you okay you mentioned in your testimony something about ballards could you just identify where those ballards
are are intended. >> Sure were. So, um I had uh on the parking lot side or on the north side of the uh Monipole Foundation, I have three ballards protecting um that side of the
structure. I I think Mr. Kas's letter talked about adding additional ballards around the entirety of that. I would have no issue with that. Um I we we have done that in the past. Given the proximity to the right of way, is DOT
require any additional safety measures on top of the ballards that Mr. Costa suggested? >> They do not. >> Okay. and within the confines of your professional expertise, um the positioning of the billboard and the
proximity of the building from a life safety perspective, does that present any heightened risk of rendering fire safety service or fire protection services either to the sub building on the subject property or the adjacent property? Um,
>> and and where I'm driving at is can you get an aerial truck in there to provide fire protection for both properties? >> Uh, sure. So, just re regardless of whether or not I'm building a a a 60oot double-sided billboard on the property,
if if, god forbid, if there was a fire at this property, um, in my opinion, a fire truck would not enter into the property. it's just too narrow uh for them to do that um to risk uh either life or or machinery in there. So, they
would they would fight the fire from one or both of the right of ways. Uh if they had to, they could even come down the adjacent dead end uh that's just to the west of us. So, I think regardless of what's being constructed or
reconstructed on the property, um, your fire and your your fire and and and aspects would remain the same. >> Okay, that's all questions I had. Any further? >> Just one one or two followers.
Fantastic. >> Mr. Gibbons, I too love Google Earth. One thing when you uh with the impact of the the adjacent uh residential properties
if you go on Google Earth they actually have solar panels. >> Yes. I'm not sure if that would impact this it would be an impact >> further um and whether or not that cause any
>> any which house specifically I >> think it's 21 >> the second house >> is it the second one yeah I can I can make out something on there >> more importantly again because of the setbacks and the height requests and everything would that impact any of the
adjacent homes if they wanted to put solar So maybe you want to look into that also. >> Okay. Understood. And then I think just one followup because you just testified something with a fire truck that it's too narrow to get back there. You just
the board's edification. What's the width of the drive? >> Uh yes. I mean just over 12 foot and where >> and you know what's required for two-way circulation on a park lot? I >> I don't have the I don't have the
ordinance in front of me, but I'm assuming it's wider than 12 ft. I would think it's probably four feet. >> Okay, >> that's it, Mr. Chair. Thankful. >> Now, not to beat a dead horse, but those solar panels are facing the direction of
the subject property, which would tell me the sun is coming from that direction. >> They're not on the other side of the house. They're on the house closest to the subject property, which is telling me that the sun is coming from >> We're talking about the house,
too. Not you said the closest. >> All I could tell you was many years. It's on the side of the house closest to the subject properties, not the house next to it, the second house, >> but the solar panels, and I don't know which is east and west here, but the
solar panels are on the side of the roof that is closer to the subject property, which would tell me the sun is coming from that from the roof 43. >> So, when you look at Google Maps, you'll see >> they're only on one side here. kind of looks like they're on
>> they're only on one side and they're on the front of the house. >> I mean, I can I can see it on >> Seems psychological to something. >> That's why they put the solar panels. When you look at Google Earth, you'll see it. >> You have a I agree. You have a peaked roof. Um looks like there's solar panels on both sides of that. >> It's on the front
>> and and on the front facing uh Lake View >> facing Lake View. And if you were looking at their house, it would be to the left of their house. >> Yeah. And >> so that's telling me the sun's coming from that side. I agree that the sun obviously east to west and and that that roof is getting full exposure.
>> I would have to assume >> I I I would agree with you. >> All right. It's 10:29. >> Mr. Anything further from you? >> No. Chairman. >> Okay. We have to open the public.
>> No, we're we'll call them back. Yeah. Get out of here. Okay. So, let's uh pick a night to uh continue the application. >> Thank you. >> Your next meeting. >> Hold on folks and check your calendars.
>> June. We already have we already have a sign application on that night. >> That's good because I have a conflict that night. What's your next meeting? >> 24th. >> I'm available.
>> June 24th, folks. Anybody? >> I will not be here the 24th. else has >> 24. >> Okay. >> Knock this lady out. >> All right. So, this uh application is going to be carried to June 24th at 7:30
p.m. in this room. There will be no further public notice either published or in the mail. This is the continued public notice. Now, U. Mr. Falconson, do we have your consent to extend the time between now and that night um from the 120 days that the board has to act on this?
>> Yes. >> All right. Great. Thank you very much. And we will see you all on June 24th. >> Gentlemen, thank you. Um at this time, we have nothing further on on our agenda this evening. I we'll look and I believe public is not home for the night as
well. So at this point, I will look for a motion to >> still move. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Craig. Is a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposing abstain? >> You're adjourned. 10:31. >> Thank you.